Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I had gone off-topic with that one lets just drop that.
Church will burn Quran
- Thread starter baftan
- Start date
Maybe this idiot. There were, however, protests against the faith of Islam before 9/11 as well. You can't just put everything anti-Islam on 9/11.
Oddly enough, there were terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists against America before 9/11...
All scriptures embedded in villification of others should be burnt.
I think that only leaves the Sikh scriptures doesn't it?
Believers (in anything) wanting non-believers to obey what they believe (here it's the holiness of the qur'an, physically and spiritually) is what western civilization calls proselytizing/evangelizing/converting. Requiring or forcing them to obey is doing so forcibly and fanatically. Muslims blindly believe that the physical qur'an is somehow holy and that the entire world must abide by this. Some threaten to violently rise up against these wrongdoers.
Muslims practice this in their countries, and they attempt to practice it worldwide. The posts by Muslims here simply reflect this, and their inelasticity shows their stalwart single-mindedness over it. Even in their politeness, they simply refuse to at least try to consider or understand the fundamental concept private property in western civilization. Their thought process is a one-way street.
Most of the modern clash by main street Islamic fanaticism against western civilization began with Muslims feelings of power because they sat on much of the world's coveted petroleum. Tensions will continue to rise as their prospects of power fade along with the petroleum supply and the world's growing desire to switch to alternate fuel sources. All of this (9-11, single-country wars, threats of qur'an burning, etc) is insignificant compared to WW3 that this fanaticism leads us toward.
Western civilization gladly allows Muslims their sacredness of the qur'an. It's not their sacred view of the qur'an, but their forceful fanaticism behind it that offends. At a time when the western world is awash in a wave pluralism, Islam refuses to follow suit ... to let others do their own thing. Perhaps they also see this as a critical point in history where no one has the upper hand, and that they can rise to be "king of the mountain".
Islamic fanaticism offends the western ideas of property rights, plurality, individuality, the sovereignty of nations, etc. And, for the moment, this fanaticism ... call it terrorism if you will ... has clearly won. And now they're feeling their oats; it has only emboldened and encouraged them.
This issue is far from resolved. One fourth of the world is Muslim. The physical holiness of the qur'an is a small yet significant/foreboding part of the divisiveness between Islam and the rest of the world. Unless Islam itself learns to respect others, a major clash — a world war — is inevitable.
Muslims practice this in their countries, and they attempt to practice it worldwide. The posts by Muslims here simply reflect this, and their inelasticity shows their stalwart single-mindedness over it. Even in their politeness, they simply refuse to at least try to consider or understand the fundamental concept private property in western civilization. Their thought process is a one-way street.
Most of the modern clash by main street Islamic fanaticism against western civilization began with Muslims feelings of power because they sat on much of the world's coveted petroleum. Tensions will continue to rise as their prospects of power fade along with the petroleum supply and the world's growing desire to switch to alternate fuel sources. All of this (9-11, single-country wars, threats of qur'an burning, etc) is insignificant compared to WW3 that this fanaticism leads us toward.
Western civilization gladly allows Muslims their sacredness of the qur'an. It's not their sacred view of the qur'an, but their forceful fanaticism behind it that offends. At a time when the western world is awash in a wave pluralism, Islam refuses to follow suit ... to let others do their own thing. Perhaps they also see this as a critical point in history where no one has the upper hand, and that they can rise to be "king of the mountain".
Islamic fanaticism offends the western ideas of property rights, plurality, individuality, the sovereignty of nations, etc. And, for the moment, this fanaticism ... call it terrorism if you will ... has clearly won. And now they're feeling their oats; it has only emboldened and encouraged them.
This issue is far from resolved. One fourth of the world is Muslim. The physical holiness of the qur'an is a small yet significant/foreboding part of the divisiveness between Islam and the rest of the world. Unless Islam itself learns to respect others, a major clash — a world war — is inevitable.
Yes and your point? I said what I said because someone was trying to falsely put down all of today's anti-Islamic attitudes as a result of 9/11 and on how the whole thing was handled by the Bush administration and the media.
Which is simply not the case. There have been protests against the advance of Sharia Law, for example, for decades now here in Europe. It's not all about the whole "terrorist" thing. Some people have perfectly legitimate reasons for protesting against Islam.
Why do you think any version of Islam is against property rights?
I admit that SAM seems to be against them (We have had several recent exchanges on this with me pointing out that ownership is essential to all societies, even the most primitive hunter / gatherers.) but I think SAM is not representative of most Muslims on this issue. The Koran and Islamic leaders specifically recognize ownership & all forms of ownership / property rights (except, I think, in some cases not for women)
As we've veeeeered ever so unusually off the topic issue, let's get back to where we once belonged. (Get back Jo.)
In case you wondered where Jewish people were in this great debate - and I'm sure it occurred to some of you - wonder no more.
Ooo-kay.
In case you wondered where Jewish people were in this great debate - and I'm sure it occurred to some of you - wonder no more.
Ooo-kay.
Any religion is what it's adherents make of it, and technically speaking, there's probably as many versions of a religion as there are adherents. However, what SAM claims here, I have seen elsewhere. It is not uncommon.
could you justify equating ownership with asset control? for instance (assuming i am correct) in marxism, there is no individual ownership of any asset. the state administers stuff held in trust and ultimately owned by the collective. the collective is the state and as a result administers the assets it owns
oh dear
did i just justify the equation?
Khoda and other local officials blamed Iran's state-run Press TV for fanning simmering anger in Kashmir with a report on a group of Christians who tore pages from the Koran in a demonstration outside the White House on Saturday.
So you're saying that opposing terrorism isn't a legitimate reason to protest?